memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Deletion archive 2006
This is the Archive where discussion is moved to from the Deletion pages after it has been resolved by deletion of the page in subject. Please add discussions chronologically by date of deletion, oldest at the bottom. :Note:' "Immediate" and "image" deletions do not need to be listed here. Deletion Pages: Votes for deletion, Images for deletion, Possible copyright infringements, Pages for immediate deletion See also: , Votes for undeletion, Deletion archive 2005, Deletion archive 2004. ---- =Votes for deletion= MA:DR & Memory Alpha:DR MA:DR ;MA:DR: The last discussion regarding this was moved to Memory_Alpha:Ten_Forward#Shortcut_links because we were still discussing the use of shortcut links in general. With that out of the way, we can now go back to discuss the deletion of this one. I'm not moving this discussion back here, because some opinions might have changed, or were based on the assumption that all shortcuts should be deleted. Please vote again. To clarify, this should be deleted, because the page it is supposed to link to, Memory Alpha:Duty Roster, was under discussion, moved to another title, and might or might not moved back to that title in the future. Meanwhile, we shouldn't have shortcuts for pages that do not exist. -- Cid Highwind 15:35, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. --From Andoria with Love 03:41, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) :*'Deleted' and archived. --From Andoria with Love 20:45, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) Memory Alpha:DR ;Memory Alpha:DR: As above. -- Cid Highwind 15:35, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. Weyoun 15:40, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. --From Andoria with Love 03:41, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) :*'Deleted' and archived. --From Andoria with Love 20:45, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) Cochrane delta (01-13-06) ;Cochrane delta: Not canon. Might be from one of the novels, though, and as such could be trimmed down and added to the background section of that article. As a separate article, delete. Addition: It's Federation (novel), information was just added to that article. -- Cid Highwind 19:25, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Merge' histories and delete this. --From Andoria with Love 03:29, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'.Jaz 03:30, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' and Merge.--Tim Thomason 08:33, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' and Merge - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 22:13, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Keep'. This is a legitimate trek subject. -- Krevaner 12:05, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) :*'Merged' and deleted. --From Andoria with Love 20:31, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) The Dauphin (TNG episode) (01-13-06) ;The Dauphin (TNG episode) : Redirect; was created to catch link from Wikipedia article. I instead changed the Wikipedia page to link to the correct article title here - I guess that's the preferred way of doing things... -- Cid Highwind 21:41, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) * delete - There may also be other, similar redirects within M/A as well, might have to spot those at some point as well. --Alan del Beccio 22:53, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Delete. --From Andoria with Love 10:41, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Delete away.--Tim Thomason 08:33, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) :*'Deleted'. --From Andoria with Love 03:11, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) Memory Beta (01-13-06) ;Memory Beta : The assumption seems logical, but it is still an assumption. With no "original" information (not counting the fact that there are facilities with similar names) and probably no one ever linking to or searching for it, I simply don't see the sense of this. -- Cid Highwind 23:00, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) :I moved the reference to part of a non-canon article, Memory Beta was mentioned in "Memory Prime". deletion is likely for the redirect. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk * Delete redirect. --From Andoria with Love 10:41, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Delete and maybe merge.--Tim Thomason 08:33, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC) :* Deleted. --From Andoria with Love 03:11, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) Various templates (01-06-06) Template:Meta no deletion consensus; please continue discussion on Template talk:Meta Template:Imageprovided ;Template:Imageprovided: Unneccessary, images are either or , attribution can become wrong if new images are uploaded. For further reasoning, see template talk page. -- Cid Highwind 17:59, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'--Alan del Beccio 12:02, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'--From Andoria with Love 01:00, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 03:01, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) **'Deleted'. Template talk:Imageprovided remains and should probably be archived/kept somehow. -- Cid Highwind 17:33, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC) From Ten Forward I was looking at Image:Riker on phoenix.jpg, and found that it had both the and boilerplate messages. The former states: : The copyright of this image '''belongs to Paramount Pictures'. Its use is contended to be consistent with fair use rules under United States copyright law. See Copyrights.'' Whereas the latter states: : This image is copyrighted. It is used here with the explicit permission '''of the owner', Section 31. The terms of permission do not include third-party use (Image source: www.section31.com ).'' These seem contradictory to me. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the person was intending to state that the image belongs to Paramount, but the file itself was procured from a source other than the uploader (namely, Section 31). Obviously, both Paramount & Section 31 cannot ''both '''own the image. I guess my question should be that, in addition to and , should we have one that indicates that the image file itself has an original source that differs from the individual who uploaded it. Or I could just be way off-base. — THOR ''=/\='' 15:41, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC) * I think the first one says it all and the the source should not matter -- in terms of screen caps, if Paramount owns it. The second one, which I'm not sure everyone is necessarily aware of, is for artwork that doesnt fall under the first template, such as Captainmikes rank insignia images and such. Either we go by that or we limit our caps, as I have suggested before (when we had our first wave of Trekpulse images come in), to user-capped images only. We already know that Jorg has pretty much every image on file that this site will ever need, not to mention the fact that I own nearly half of the DVDs, which I too can cap, as well as another half a dozen members here who have similar capabilities; I really dont think we can use the excuse that we don't have the resources from within, so why bother snatching images from other websites and making up yet another boiler plate to justify covering a non-contributors screen cap, that someone else can upload over with an original user-contributed screen cap the next day? --Alan del Beccio 17:26, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::The copyright ownership has always been Paramount. It is a matter of courtesy to attribute the image to the person who capped it, but the ownership remains Paramount's. Perhaps we could use the normal for all Paramount owned material (all screencaps and publicity photos), and the for any image that belongs to someone else. ::If we are still interested in attribution to section 31, trekpulse, and others, we could create a separate, second boilerplate stating they capped the image -- although the copyright, and the right to sell the image was never theirs, they simply circulate it in a fair use manner, as we do. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:44, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::: That's what I was thinking, was something as a courtesy saying something to the effect of: ::: This image is not the product of a Memory Alpha contributor, but rather it was provided for use here by Section 31. ::: — 'THOR' [[User_talk:pd_THOR|=/\='']] 18:53, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::: In what I'm sure is going to prove to be a prime example of overenthusiasm, I created what I was discussing above in the template. Subsequently, I have also updated Image:Riker on phoenix.jpg by both removing the tamplete, and adding the new one. Input? — THOR ''=/\='' 19:57, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC) ::: Having received no input in favour for, or in opposition to the new template, I have continued to use it. However, as I have included the template with the indention already, I have not been manually indenting it when amending image description pages. However, I'm also not indenting anymore; iirc there was a comment made some time back about the possibility of adding the indention inside the template, and configuring a bot to make the adjustments to the pages which already indent it. ::: Is this something I imagined, or should we just leave the template as it is, and just continue to add an indention when utilizing it? — THOR ''=/\='' 05:45, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC) :::: is currently being fixed. In the future, please use it without manual indentation, just like this one. -- Cid Highwind 16:53, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC) From Template talk:Imageprovided I was just starting to update this template, when I had second thoughts... Should we really have this message (whether used as a template or manually) on the image description page? Images might change (better screenshots, clipping, other frames, completely other scenes matching the image description, ...). In all these cases, such an attribution might become outdated. I think we should remove this template, and in the future use additional attribution just in the edit summary, but not on the page itself. -- Cid Highwind 16:53, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC) * I agree in terms of it becoming outdated. Last week I replaced numerous images that referenced Trekpulse (which was a dead link anyway and needs to be removed from all images, solely for that fact) with my own caps. Frankly, between myself and Jorg, we could replace these images with "original" contributor uploaded images rather easily. I would almost rather suggest we establish a list in the requested pictures of images to replace (if we deem it necessary to do) rather than create a new template. --Alan del Beccio 17:29, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC) * In my opinion should be used when the source of the screenshot in question is from Paramount, being it episode, movie or poster screenshot/scans. Everything else should be where it concerns fan made images etc. Using a seperate message template to mention where the screenshot came from is not necessary. If people want they can include this in the image description. This way you also prevent dead-links. -- Q 17:43, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC) Great, seems as if we agree on that. I will add this template on MA:Vfd, please leave your comments there, too. Alan, can you perhaps already take care of some of the nine images using this template at the moment? -- Cid Highwind 17:56, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC) : At the moment I cannot, however, in the near future I can replace 4 of those with no problem. --Alan del Beccio 18:49, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC) * archived --Alan del Beccio 20:06, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) Deprecated redirects (01-06-06) Note:With our policy to no longer simply delete redirects, I think it makes sense to at least have an own section for redirects here, perhaps even an own deletion page later. Template:Dax ;Template:Dax: Template moved to more verbose , all template links edited. -- Cid Highwind 22:51, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. --From Andoria with Love 01:02, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 03:01, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) Template:DWB ;Template:DWB: Template moved to more verbose , all template links edited. -- Cid Highwind 22:51, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. --From Andoria with Love 01:02, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 03:01, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) Template:Flint ;Template:Flint: As above, moved and links edited. -- Cid Highwind 20:09, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) Template:Federationpresidents ;Template:Federationpresidents: As above, moved and links edited. -- Cid Highwind 20:09, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) Template:MirrorEpisodes ;Template:MirrorEpisodes: As above, moved and links edited. -- Cid Highwind 20:09, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) * deleted/archived --Alan del Beccio 20:06, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) The Sunspots (01-06-06) *The Sunspots. Should be deleted. It doesn't matter if its a band made up of former cast members, it is not trek related. Jaz 08:49, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) **'Delete': It's been deleted before, and consensus was to "move" it to the actor's articles. I think we should simply delete it now, as the information should already be on the actors' articles.--Tim Thomason 09:20, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) **Since it's been deleted before, it qualified as an immediate delete. Deleted. --From Andoria with Love 11:00, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Archived --Alan del Beccio 08:17, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) String Theory (01-08-06) ;String Theory (physics) Evidently stemmed from a red link in the space article...there is no Trek content to it, no citation, nor does it appear to have any other pages linked to it that might suggest there could be a citation for it somewhere. --Alan del Beccio 05:34, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Delete', and remove the blasted reference from the space artcle. :P --From Andoria with Love 05:41, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Delete the heretical text.--Tim Thomason 06:27, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Delete - Captain Mike K. Barteltalk *'Delete', then replace as Mike suggests (eh, suggested... maybe just delete, then ;)). Even with the recent additions, this article has no apparent Trek relevancy, and on top of that would need a serious rewrite (POV, formatting, factual accuracy) if kept. -- Cid Highwind 15:28, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) **The original contributor blanked the article, i presupposed this was a deletion request, howeever he has not responded to my talk. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk * Delete. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 03:01, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Deleted/archived --Alan del Beccio 08:17, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) Dax's gossip column (01-08-06) ;Dax's gossip column : Evidently somebody's poor attempt at humor, it's also told in the wrong perspective. This probably qualifies for an immediate deletion, but having had no sleep for the past, oh, 27 hours, what do I know? :-P --From Andoria with Love 16:07, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) * I dunno, I suppose it could be merged into the pages of the individuals referenced on the page. I'll do it if I find time. --Alan del Beccio 18:24, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) * '''delete' I don't understand the problem with linking to those four articles -- perhaps the archivist thought they werent allowed to add Manwaring and Strek articles? They seem valid to me, but archivists really have to (<--click the link) and add the citations themselves. Since Strek and Manwaring et al. were mentioned in a valid resource, a canon episode, there's no problem with creating new articles for them and listing them as Starfleet personnel, Deep Space 9 personnel, Starfleet lieutenants, etc etc. The comment in the article seems to indicate the contributor thought that Strek wasn't important enough to have his own article, but he was (?) mentioned on the show, so theres no problem (is there?)-- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk * Delete and salvage any useful content. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 03:01, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'Deleted/archived --Alan del Beccio 08:17, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) String Theory (Physics) (01-08-06) ;String Theory (Physics): Same as before--Alan del Beccio 18:14, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) *I suggested this be moved to a background secton -- perhaps we can '''merge' with an article that deals heavily with string theory (such as a "references" section of Star Trek: Voyager - String Theory or a "background" section of graviton or subatomic particle. I suggested this already to the original contributor, but he seems to have his hands full trying to understand the wiki structure right now and chose to recreate the article even though i suggested not to. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk **i've moved this to subatomic physics, which i feel might be a valid area of expansion. portions not mentioned on Star Trek must be kept in a background section, according to our -- please click on the link to read the , and also the -- to understand why topics not mentioned on Star Trek should not have articles named after them, and should always have non-Star trek related data in "background" subsections. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk *I have merged the article with Star Trek: Voyager - String Theory, the actual article shall be deleted **Looks like we both worked on this -- i moved the article anyway. Perhaps the novel version could be shortened, and both versions kept (altough the edition in subatomic physics still needs formatting -- we should probably only list points about string theory there that would lead to a link to an article that already exists. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk *'Deleted/archived --Alan del Beccio 08:17, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) 26 (01-08-06) '26' - Incorrect information (Only Deep Space 9 has 26 hour days as we know), and personal note background information. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 23:44, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) * '''Delete'. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 03:01, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Delete. I would think this would actually qualify as an inaccurate delete, since it doesn't contain any meaningful (or accurate) content. --From Andoria with Love 05:15, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) *'''Deleted/archived --Alan del Beccio 08:17, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)